Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Cornwell

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 27, 2019

In the Matter of Fulton Casey Dale Cornwell, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2018-001660

          Submitted February 6, 2019

          John S. Nichols, Disciplinary Counsel, and Ericka McCants Williams, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

          Fulton Casey Dale Cornwell, of Columbia, pro se.

          PER CURIAM.

         In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) contained in Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). In the Agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to a three-year suspension or disbarment. We accept the Agreement and disbar respondent from the practice of law in this state, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension.[1] The facts, as set forth in the Agreement, are as follows.

         Facts

         Matter I

         After being appointed to represent a client in a post-conviction relief (PCR) matter, respondent failed to keep his client reasonably informed of the status of the matter and failed to respond to reasonable requests for information.

         Matters II, IV, VI, & VIII[2]

         Respondent was appointed or retained to represent various clients in PCR matters. During respondent's representation of the clients in Matters II, IV, and VI, respondent failed to keep the clients reasonably informed as to status of their cases. In Matters VI and VIII, respondent failed to respond to the clients' reasonable requests for information.

         Additionally, in Matters II, IV, and VIII, respondent failed to respond to the initial notices of investigation (NOI) and to the Treacy[3] letters from ODC seeking responses to the complaints.[4] In Matter VI, respondent initially failed to respond to the NOI but later filed a written response to the NOI upon a written inquiry from ODC.

         Matter III

         Although the underlying complaint in this matter was ultimately determined to be without merit, respondent failed to respond to the NOI.

         Matt ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.